Statistics show that the top reason for young people are leaving the Church is that their questions about the faith do not get answered.
They have questions about God, the afterlife, seemingly unanswered prayers, other religions, morality, and science. And these questions, usually shaped by secular sources hostile to religion, put Catholicism on the defensive. When young people don’t find answers, they grow disillusioned. They slowly withdraw from the Church until they stop showing up at all.
In his new book 100 Tough Questions for Catholics: Common Obstacles to Faith Today (Sophia Institute Press, 2025), David G. Bonagura, Jr. transforms 100 hot-button questions from obstacles to pathways of faith.
Catholic World Report spoke with Bonagura about how he responded to these pressing questions.
Catholic World Report: Where did you get the idea for this book?
David Bonagura: Answering impromptu questions about the faith is my favorite part of teaching. One day, in the aftermath of the pandemic, I was listening to a homily from Bishop Robert Barron, who pointed to studies that indicated young people are leaving the faith because they are not having their questions answered. Suddenly a bell went off in my head. That week I gave my students blank sheets of paper, with instructions to write, without including their names, any questions they had about God or religion, and I would answer one or two to start every class for the semester.
This quickly became the students’—and my own—favorite part of class. I repeated the practice in subsequent semesters.
After a couple of years, I had a stack of questions in hand, and realized that many more Catholics, young and not so young, have the same questions and could benefit from frank, concise answers. So I decided to take the 100 of the “hot-button questions” and put them into what became this book.
CWR: What are some of these questions?
Bonagura: Some of them are eternal questions concerning the compatibility of God with the realities of evil and suffering, the existence of free will, the multiplicity of religions, and the person of Jesus Christ. Others are more attune to the problems of the world today: the relationship of faith and science, whether extra-terrestrial life fits into the Christian vision, the authenticity of the Bible and its stories, and sexual morality. With this last, homosexuality and the transgender phenomenon receive a good deal of attention.
What’s most striking to me, though, is not the questions themselves but how they were asked: more than a few begin, “How do we know that….?” People today are looking for assurance for their beliefs; they want to be sure that what they believe is true. It’s as if they are eager to believe, but some hang-ups keep them from fully embracing our Lord.
CWR: How did you go about answering the questions?
Bonagura: I grouped them by theme, so they are divided into 14 chapters that have an arc to them. The first concerns God and human beings; the antepenultimate and penultimate chapters concern the afterlife; the final chapter, entitled “Getting Back on Track with God,” explains how believers can live their faith even if they have been away for some time. My answers are direct: wherever possible, questions begin with “Yes” or “No” before launching into an explanation.
In the introduction I offer an analogy of a tree to help understand how Church teachings are all connected to each other since they all grow from the same trunk: the deposit of faith, which is God’s revelation to human beings through the incarnation of His Son. Because of this fact, many answers to particular questions include a cross-reference to other questions. These are not 100 isolated questions; they are all connected insofar as they point to the one God who is the source of all being.
As I note in my conclusion, entitled “Now What?”, my answers are intended as “first steps” to loving Christ more deeply. Certainly, more details can be found to flesh out all of my answers. But my goal is not to give definitive answers. It is to clear obstacles some more people can have a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ. The answers lead to the truth, and God is truth.
CWR: What were the hardest questions to answer?
Bonagura: Certainly the perennial questions pertaining to what is known as “the problem of evil”: How can a good God allow evil and suffering in the world?
This is so difficult to answer for two reasons: evil and suffering affect us acutely and because we cannot see the fullness of God’s plan that allows evil to exist within His providence. To accept evil in the world requires faith, which is a difficult ask for someone outside the Church. In the book I offer the sufferings which Jesus willingly undertook as the surest proof that we can trust God on this, for through Jesus’ suffering He brought about redemption and eternal life in Heaven.
CWR: What is your hope for this book?
Bonagura: Everyone has questions about our beautiful Faith, some more than others. For those who believe and practice the faith regularly, I hope this book fortifies their faith and motivates them to trust the Church and to enter more deeply into their relationship with God.
For those who believe but have fallen away from the Church, I hope this book showcases the beauty of our faith and how the Church, the Mass, and the sacraments are necessary to experience this beauty. For those whose belief is tepid or shriveled, I hope this book shows that the Catholic faith is both perfectly rational and a tremendous gift that helps us return the incredible love that God has for us. In clearing obstacles to faith, we find our fulfillment in God, the author of all that is.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Our priests in our parish do not teach the Authenticity of God whom in their mind God exists only to love us. Most in the pews are content with attending the Mass. A few while attending the Mass must seek and find Authenticity elsewhere.
My question is simple but profound- How can a Faithful Catholic claim to be in communion with Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, while peacefully accepting a man as Pope, who as a cardinal, had defected from The Catholic Church? Surely without a valid Pope, The Center, which exists Through, With, And In Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque) cannot hold?
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/did-a-premature-conclave-in-2013-invalidate-the-election-of-pope-francis/
My answer is just as simple, but more profound.
Catholics are not only called to remain faithful to Christ and His Church, they are also called to remain in union with Rome and the universal Catholic Church by accepting the Pope as the leader of the universal Church.
If we reject Francis as our Pope, we’re no different than the Orthodox, who reject the authority of the Pope.
The 4 points of Catholic doctrine define the True Church: It must be One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. By rejecting the Pope, the Oneness (unity) of the Church is shattered. The Orthodox are Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, but they aren’t One, because they reject the authority of the Pope.
Also, if our next Pope happens to be more traditional than Pope Francis, I wouldn’t be surprised if Lifesite News went out of business, mainly because they wouldn’t be able to peddle pathetic articles about his validity like the one you posted above.
Another procedural fact that invalidated the election, that does not change the substantive fact that Jorge Bergoglio, by condoning same sex sexual relationships as a cardinal, had ipso facto defected from The Catholic Church along with any cardinal who was aware that Jorge Bergoglio had defected and voted for him anyway, and any Catholic who was aware of Jorge Bergoglio’s defection, but “peacefully “accepted his claim to the Papacy.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/did-a-premature-conclave-in-2013-invalidate-the-election-of-pope-francis/
While the event is published in the Opinion piece linked from Lifesite may have happened, the conclusion that flows from its premise stands in opposition to the beliefs of some 5,300+ Catholic bishops who all believe that Pope Francis is, for better or worse, the pope. Put simply, the Catholic faithful can not only claim, but confidently know to be in communion with Christ by remaining humble and obedient to the authority of the Church through her Ordinaries. What’s more telling, and worthy of deep reflection, is that Lifesite chooses to run opinion pieces that stand against the current of the Magisterium.
Thank you for your comment above, Mr Kleineck.
It should be impressed upon all Catholics, including ND above, that Pope Francis IS our validly elected pontiff. Lifesite News, operated by John-Henry-Westen, is the rats nest of like-minded sedevacantist Catholics, who constantly toe the line on accepting Francis as our Pope, and sow doubt on his validity.
I agree with Westen’s conservative views on abortion and family, but my support ends there.
The Catholic Church needs more faithful witnesses to the true Faith, who are willing to stay in full commununion with Rome and the universal Church, in both the East and West. It does not need conservative protestants like John-Henry Westen, and so-called “Dr” Taylor Marshall leading people away from the universal Church just because they don’t happen to like our current Pope.
The Catholic Church is indefectible. Lifesite News is not.
“The Catholic Church is indefectible”, as is Christ’s teaching on the Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, which Jorge Bergoglio denies.
The way to undermine any institution whether secular or religious is not to attack it directly because that only inspires its members to join together to defend it. Rather, you sow discord and suspicion to divide and set the members against each other.
You are a real scream, bub.
That so many young people do not have their questions answered shows that parish catechesis has been a complete failure. What exactly are parishes doing when they require children to be in classes for First Communion and Confirmation preparation? In my parish, at least 40% of kids in First Communion and Confirmation prep do not attend weekly Sunday Mass, nor do their families. Parish sacramental preparation is largely a farce. I’d even say that the vast majority of Catholics are ignorant about Catholic faith, but the ones who continue to attend Mass do so out of habit (age 60 and older) but those younger have stopped going.
What you say Mr. Wright is so true. The information that I have from my parish elementary school is that no more than 50% of the students go to Mass, as their parents are not going. The parents seem to be sending them to the school because of the better academics and discipline.
Given the schools where Mr. Bonagura teaches probably all of the students, or the vast majority, have gone to Catholic elementary and high Schools and they still do not know the faith. I went to elementary and high school in the 1950’s. In the earlier years we used the Baltimore catechism. Following Vatican II this was ridiculed as rote learning. Maybe it was rote learning, but we learned the faith, and the nuns who taught us knew the faith and believed it. Those days are gone.
I wish Mr. Bonaguura good luck with his book, but I doubt whether it will get down to the level where it is needed. Bishop Barron said that we are loosing them between confirmation and senior year of high School. If we don’t recognize where the problem is it won’t be corrected.
If the children of the 50’s–the boomers–knew the faith, why did so many leave? And/or resort to contraception once it became readily available?
I am almost 80 years old. When I was young, I and many of my fellow students had these same questions which trouble young people today. Fortunately, we had priests, nuns, bishops, even popes who offered Christian insights and guidance for us. God willing, our next pope will be a man of God who will teach and uphold the truths of the faith clearly and directly. And, hopefully, he himself will be a committed and faithful believer, a man without his own ideas he wants to impose on the Church.
Bonagura came up with a great idea for teaching what really matters. Whether extra-terrestrial life fits into the Christian vision is a question that parallels “How do we know that…?”. The former suggests reasons not to believe the latter the general expression of lack of belief. At least looking at it from my experience for a majority of college age students.
Extraterrestrial life, let’s say more as regards intelligent life similar to Man is invisibly [here meaning underlying our thoughts] connected to the crucifixion and resurrection. If we possess a ‘lived’ faith in Christ’s passion as redemptive, as the ultimate expression of pure, infinite love, we realize this singular act defines the cosmos. That such an act cannot be replicated. It doesn’t rationally omit the possibility of extraterrestrials, rather that interior conviction makes the question somewhat irrelevant.
Insofar as rational scientific thought the question of extraterrestrial intelligent life remains open, whereas from the superior premise of faith we speak theologically. The Trinity is the ultimate pattern of reality. There is only one supreme Godhead and one person, under the sun [figuratively speaking in reference to other constellations, even the possible existence of a parallel universe] Jesus of Nazareth who exclusively reveals the Godhead. If we theorize parallel creations and other divine revelation of God, we submit to the error of multiple gods.
We read: “[Other questions] are more attune to the problems of the world today: the relationship of faith and science, whether extra-terrestrial life fits into the Christian vision…”
Some possibilities mercilessly repeated from earlier comments:
(1) Have any possible and technologically advanced civilizations in the cosmos also been GIVEN, by the transcendent God the washroom key for “wisdom” and for the Beatific Vision? Or, is there a threshold glass-ceiling for this favored kind of gifted “intelligence,” governed more from above than from neurons and below?
(2) How, exactly, might any implied cosmically-multiple polygenesis (poly-redemptoris?) square with terrestrial Original Sin (just a quaint local narrative?) plus then the SINGULAR redemptive act of the incarnate (!) Jesus Christ—-a “person” fully human and divine, both (!)—on Calvary in our otherwise and statistically insignificant galaxy?
(3) Or, is any such Redemption by the divinity multiple across space and time, while still remaining ONE ACTION? Just as every Mass around our small world is the unbloody renewal/extension of the singular (!) Self-donation on Calvary, while also “numerically distinct”—within/by the indwelling Holy Spirit? Or, instead, does the humility of God (!) expose Himself only “here” in humble and backwater Jerusalem? (Perhaps because none of those other hypothetical “intelligences” ever had the gift of freedom toward the Ultimate Reality and, therefore, the capacity to abysmally “fall”—because not created in the “image and likeness” of an absolutely personal God?
(Surprise!: “…Others destroy the gratuity of the supernatural order [!], since God, they say, cannot create intellectual beings without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision” [Humanae Generis, n. 26]. Meaning, that He can create such un-called intellectual beings.)
(4) Or, instead and with Blessed Duns Scotus, might Christ have become incarnate here (and even elsewhere?) ABSENT our fallen-ness and our particular and very interior need for salvation history—our need for damage control (salvation history)?
(5) Or, despite hypothetical technical superiority elsewhere, is our human access toward beatitude still a most singular gift into the cosmos—and deification into the LOGOS? Beyond mere geography and astronomy, what is even meant by “the world”?
Pope St. John Paul II proposed a distinctive “ONTOLOGICAL LEAP,” sometimes thoughtlessly mistranslated as only an “evolutionary” leap:
“The moment of transition to the SPIRITUAL cannot be the object of this kind of observation [meaning the natural sciences], which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience fall within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator’s plans” (“Message on Evolution to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.” Oct. 1996).
SUMMARY: “Can anything good come from [backwater] Nazareth” (John 1:46), or likewise from our equally backwater galaxy among hundreds of billions?
While all questions are considered valuable, not all questions have answers. Should we continue to question what we do not understand, or should we at some point submit to God’s will and accept the currently unknown? Submitting to God’s will is a fundamental concept on the path to discipleship and holiness.
Regarding extraterrestrial life and its implications, the answer has always rung true to my spirit, my mind, and my heart is that there is one Jesus who bled from every pore, hung on the cross, and gave his so that we be forgiven, and through him, we can enter into the Father’s presence. Jesus did this for all of God’s children. If there are other creatures on other worlds, Jesus is their Savior as much as he is ours. Furthermore, God created his children in his image and likeness. If there are God’s children anywhere else in the universe, then they will be in God’s image likeness.
Thank you for this. It is especially useful with those seeking, like adolescents.
Among adults, answers are often (usually) insufficient. Many adults simply do not accept the orthodox faith.
For instance, while evangelizing outside Planned Parenthood clinics, many formers Catholic Escorts, several who had become Protestant ministers!, were leading women into abortion because they KNEW that abortion is killing. They simply worshiped the right to individual freedom above the right to life.
Statistics actually suggest that many (most?) leave the One Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church because they do not want to accept the Catechism. This is the reason why this pontificate panders to Protestants, globalists, et al. (C.f. Amoralist Laetitia, Sfiducia Supplicans, etc.)
According to Pew (assuming we can trust their statistics;)
“Majorities of former Catholics who are now unaffiliated also cite having stopped believing in Catholicism’s teachings overall (65%) or dissatisfaction with Catholic teachings about abortion and homosexuality (56%), and almost half (48%) cite dissatisfaction with church teachings about birth control, as reasons for leaving Catholicism. These reasons are cited less commonly by former Catholics who have become Protestant; 50% say they stopped believing in Catholicism’s teachings, 23% say they differed with the Catholic Church on issues such as abortion and homosexuality, and only 16% say they were unhappy with Catholic teachings on birth control.”
For more see:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/04/27/faith-in-flux3/#:~:text=Among%20former%20Catholics%20who%20are,Catholic%20Church%20among%20this%20group.
Great riff.
“UNLESS SOULS ARE SAVED, NOTHING IS SAVED”
(Bishop Fulton Sheen)
I have been around kids in Catholic high schools in recent years, and I’d say that one of the overriding conclusions that many or most of these kids draw from their religion classes and their Mass attendance is that the Catholic religion is a casual matter, and a side matter, not to be taken very seriously.
In part, they deduce this from the way, in their religion classes, non-Catholic Christians and even non-Christian religious believers are given so much respect, equality, appreciation, and equivalence in the scheme of things.
They observe that in their Catholic school and Catholic parish there is no stigma or disapproval attached to being non-Catholic or to leaving the Catholic religion.
This is profoundly different from the Catholic culture and practice prior to the Vatican II Council, when there was a huge taboo attached to any and all involvement with schismatic sects and with non-Catholic religions (except for Catholic missionaries to convert them).
For most of Church history, it was a HUGE scandal for a Catholic to stop attending Mass on Sundays and Holy Days.
The parish priest would make a visit to the non-attender, to “read him the riot act,” as they say. Intense pressure from family and Church would be brought down on the non-attender. In some heavily Catholic regions, the non-attender would be threatened with being fired from his job or losing all his customers. The non-attender risked being shunned by much of his immediate and extended family.
In those days, the whole Church treated remaining a practicing Catholic like a matter of life and death—which, spiritually speaking, it was, and IS (even if Francis doesn’t agree). Right?
But can young people be blamed if present-day Church authorities (from the pope down to the religion class teacher) do NOT act and teach as if becoming and remaining a practicing Catholic is a matter of life and death?
How can any religious questions be answered satisfactorily in this modern Catholic culture of religious casualness?